Hello, RedUser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message I used a grammar/spelling page to fix it CanadiaNinja (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Manelolo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Continuation War without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Manelolo (talk) 8:26 am, 2 February 2018, Friday (12 days ago) (UTC−2)

Please see important comment at the AfD discussion regarding this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source - Wall Street Tech Spree: With Kensho Acquisition S&P Global Makes Largest A.I. Deal In History (Forbes) - https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2018/03/06/wall-street-tech-spree-with-kensho-acquisition-sp-global-makes-largest-a-i-deal-in-history/#27ec6ea767b8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathmore12 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ministry of the Economy (Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiscal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a section here: Talk:Mexican–American_War#Mexican_War

Informed users here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Talk:Mexican–American_War#Mexican_War

No bites. The idea that the Cristero War and the Second French intervention in Mexico are more often called "Mexican War" than any other war in Mexico's history is absurd. Srnec (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but there are other contenders such as Mexican War of Independence, which I consider to be more WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than any other target. But as this is impossible to stablish beyond personal perceptions, I can't get why a dab page isn't reasonable. RedUser (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because a dab page is for subjects with the same name, not a random assortment of things that could have the same name. We already have List of wars involving Mexico that covers all Mexican wars. It should at least redirect there. Srnec (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't seem random to me, at least not more random than redirecting it to Mexican–American War. Random would be type "Mexican War" and have to sort it out between World War II and Indian wars. RedUser (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Mexican War = Mexican-American War is hardly random. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was random, I said there're other entries not much less relevant than this one. RedUser (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are much less relevant because the phrase "Mexican War" predominantly means "Mexican–American War" in English usage. Our current dab page has the Cristero War and the Drug War, but not the Border War (1910–19), the Reform War or the first French intervention. I don't see the logic. If your problem is that the table at List of wars involving Mexico is hideous and should be stripped down to a bare list, I agree. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "in english" meant "in the united states" I would agree. What I consider its needed is a list of US-Mexico conflicts to hatnote M-A War and a compact list of conflicts known as "Mexican War" either there or on other similar title. But that's just my opinion of course. RedUser (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedUser, I noticed that you have reverted my changes to the King Kong 1933 article. Firstly thank you for expressing your concerns in such a civilised and polite manner. As per your request, I have included reasonings as to why I want to make the changes I proposed in the film's talk page. I sincerely believe it would improve the overall fluidity of the article. I hope that you can have a look and understand my point of view. I am more than happy to further engage in this conversation! -Best, Lee Hon Lee Poon (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright and no problem, I reinstated your edits. Next time try to leave the references in place, as they generally refer to more than one thing, and always remember to check the preview button to see if everything is in place. Beyond that have a nice time and call me if you need any help. RedUser (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user currently using IP139.228.79.34 is a long term, anonymous vandal who has been using the range of 139.XXX.XX.XX for years to spam articles with inappropriate, nonexistent, and inappropriate and nonexistent categories, in addition to inserting inappropriate, incomprehensibly poorly written, original research synthesis opinions into articles, though, the deletion of appropriate categories appears to be a new trend for it. I recommend against warning the user/IP, as, it has demonstrated no ability to respond to any form of communication. Even blocking only slows it down somewhat, as it will simply hop to another 139.XXX.XX.XX IP. I recommend simply reverting all of its edits, good and bad, as per WP:DENY when you notice this vandal being active. (I mean, yes, it has made some good edits over the years, but sorting through the bad edits for the good is tantamount to panning for gold in the Tokyo sewer system.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange way to spend one's time. Thanks for the advice, I'll gonna keep it in mind. RedUser (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comments to the page because it wasn't clear how to communicate with experienced Wikipedia editors, who may be more suited to the task. If my comments have been deleted, it indicates to me that Wikipedia isn't interested in them - inasmuch as there seems no obvious alternative, such as starting a discussion or dialogue with others, or creating a draft of an alternative that others can review before replacing the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQParks (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Battle of Flodden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please note that positive sourcing for "decisive" is discussed on talk page, please contribute to that discussion if you feel it is NOT decisive.Nilfanion (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually engage in discussion INSTEAD OF REVERTING. There are some sources on the talk page. More could be found.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were recently engaged in an edit war with user Eastfarthingan about the Anglo-French War article and you removed the wars i added. You said Fourth Anglo-Dutch War is part of the "ARW" (American Revolutionary War ?), this is not true. Fourth Anglo-Dutch War is part of the Anglo-Dutch Wars. please, have a look at the dates of beginning and ending of the above cited wars and you'll understand your mistake. I'm going to add again the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in the article, if you have any problem with that, please take your concerns to the Talk:Anglo-French War, i will be more than happy to oblige. Best regards. Wikaviani (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani:, what is part of what isn't the point. Your addition is already included as the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), you're just duplicating the material already on the page, that is only for wars between France and Britain. Per WP:BRD I suggest you self-revert and engage on a discussion of your edits instead of trying to push your views. RedUser (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but i do not agree with you, check the dates of the wars. Since fourth Anglo-Dutch war finished in 1784 and the Anglo-French war finished in 1783, how can the first one be included in the second one ? The two wars were going on in parallel.

And since, according to you, i should "self-revert and engage on a discussion of my edits instead of trying to push my views", why did not you do it when you could, instead of getting engaged in an edit war ?

More, i opened a discussion on the talk page of the article just now, if you're interested, you're welcome.

Best regards.

Wikaviani (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my reasoning for removing those non-NPOV statements backed by unreliable/insufficient sources (which includes a blog post from a site that exclusively sells Logic content). Maybe you Twinkle users could also slow down a bit and explain why you're reverting things. 131.100.232.87 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]